PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there people in the world who have had neither the opportunity to play tennis nor the rewards for playing tennis, who if having undergone the right experiences could play tennis better than the world's present best player?
TINNY: There would be many.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by many?
TINNY: There would probably be millions of people throughout the world who, if having undergone the appropriate conditioning, could play tennis better than the present world champion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If millions of people have the potential to play tennis that well, it makes being the world champion tennis player much less special.
TINNY: Being the best is never a very special thing to be. Somebody will always be the best in the world in each different thing that people do. There will always be large numbers, perhaps millions, of others who could have been better than the person who is the best if they had undergone the right experiences in their lives. The person who is best in the world at anything is not special, it is the experiences they have undergone which are special. It means little to be the best compared with others. It means more to have expressed your own potential to its fullest.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If millions of people could play tennis better than the present world's best tennis player, could millions of people also become better physicists than the world's best physicist?
TINNY: Yes, and millions of people could become better cooks, singers, race car drivers, psychologists, dancers, swimmers, doctors, carpenters, and virtually any other skill you could name, than the person who is presently the best in the world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If that is true, the potential within every human being must be immense.
TINNY: The potential within each of us is virtually unlimited.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Few people must realise the extent of their potential.
TINNY: Probably no one yet understands the true nature of their potential. Human potential is beyond even the grandest dreams.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you have said the potential of the human species is to become perfect in every aspect. What could be grander than the perfect manifestation of every characteristic?
TINNY: Although I know human potential is to become perfect in every aspect, I am far from knowing what all those characteristics will be. Many of the characteristics which shall be perfectly manifested may be presently beyond comprehension. No matter how broadly I interpret the nature of perfect existence, the true expression of that perfection remains beyond my grandest dreams.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is the human conception of perfection so limited?
TINNY: Because our understanding of perfection has been conditioned by our experiences as material beings inhabiting a physical universe, we are only just beginning to conceptualise that which exists beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Within the material plane there exist galaxies, stars, planets, and life forms without number. Can whatever exists beyond the material plane be more than that?
TINNY: All that exists on the material plane is less than the tiniest part of that which exists beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since our grandest dreams are less than the tiniest part of our true potential, we certainly have much to look forward to.
TINNY: Yes, we have much to look forward to. I pray that we don't squander that sublime opportunity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is obvious that you consider virtually all characteristics of human beings to have been developed by interactions with the environment rather than having their origins in the expression of genetic information carried in the chromosomes.
TINNY: It is clear to me that is the true nature of human life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't there a great number of scientists and researchers, in many different fields of study, who do not believe that it is the impact of the environment which determines so completely the realm of characteristics that makes up each individual?
TINNY: There has been a long standing scientific and philosophical debate concerning this matter, which might be called the nature versus nurture controversy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What point of view have the two sides usually taken on the question of how much of what we are is inherited and how much is learned?
TINNY: There have been those on the nature side of the debate who have made the claims that virtually all of what we become as adults we were born with; and, there have been those on the nurture side of the debate who have made the claim that virtually all of what we become as adults results from our interactions with the environment as we grew up. Basically, this is genetic inheritance versus conditioning.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you going to say the answer is a compromise between these two extremes?
TINNY: No, it appears to me virtually all we become as adults is determined by the effects of our experiences as we grow up. I take the side of nurture on this question.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't the inherited characteristics we are born into this world with make any real difference?
TINNY: Those inherited characteristics determine our potential, but only in the broadest terms. For example a person born with only one leg is not likely to become the world's fastest runner.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Surely the characteristics we are born with make more difference than that.
TINNY: I admit that example was somewhat extreme, but it also contains the essence of an important general truth. We come into this world essentially, although not actually, equal. The later discrepancies in our skills and abilities are due more to the experiences encountered during development into adulthood than to our inherited characteristics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why was it once believed that virtually all we would become at adulthood was determined before birth?
TINNY: Probably, more than any other reason, because the influence of experience was largely invisible when the powerful laws of learning were unknown.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What were some other reasons?
TINNY: For thousands of years in human history it was believed the offspring of rulers, the aristocracy, and the wealthy were superior to the children of common people. That was a view largely unchallenged until recent times, and has been of great influence in many human beliefs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it not true that children of parents with certain traits, skills, or abilities often tend to express those same characteristics?
TINNY: That is true, and is surely another reason why the belief we are born with certain characteristics rather than learn them has been so predominant.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't the tendency of children to express similar traits, skills, or abilities to those of their parents, proof that those are inherited characteristics?
TINNY: That is no proof at all that most human traits, skills, and abilities are inherited characteristics. The conclusion that those are inherited characteristics is based on an incorrect assessment of the facts of the situation. Actually, that misinterpretation of the nature of observed reality typifies the origins of many widely held, but false, beliefs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does that general misunderstanding take place?
TINNY: When we observe some situation or event taking place we often attempt to account for those situations or events by describing the reasons or causes. The reasons we come up with are often those which appear obvious or seem logical For example, when primitive people saw the sun cross the sky each day there was an attempt to explain that event. There were many early explanations given, such as the sun was being carried by a giant bird across the sky, or the sun was a blazing chariot of a God crossing the sky. After those primitive mythological explanations were discounted by early scientists, a new belief arose. This new belief was that the sun was a heavenly body which revolved around the earth. That belief was almost universally held and appeared to be obviously true. Those who now had that new truth about the sun's nature could look back on the myths of their primitive ancestors, sometimes with ridicule. Only a few hundred years ago it was finally proven that the sun does not revolve around the earth, but instead the earth revolves around the sun. This came as a shock to many, and that new truth took a long time to be accepted. The mistake at each stage of incorrect knowledge was to think that what appeared to be, must really be.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This is a constantly recurring idea in the new worldview; that things are as they are, not how they appear to be.
TINNY: That's correct. We must be forever testing our perceptions to see if they accurately represent truth. What may appear to be totally obvious may also be completely wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you know virtually all that each person becomes as an adult is learned, and is not inherited?
TINNY: As with all the things I say I know, that is really an assessment of what is most probable given the information available. Whether the traits, skills, and abilities shown by an adult are bestowed by inheritance or instilled by experience, there must be some process by which that is achieved. When the genetic material carried in the chromosomes is evaluated as a possible mechanism for the transmission of most traits, skills, and abilities we find the means to do that are just not present. It is easy to assume, for instance, musical ability is transmitted from musically inclined parents to their offspring through genes on the chromosomes; but, when considering the way genes work it can be seen that there is no way for this to be done. In contrast, when our life's experiences, affected by the laws of learning, are evaluated as a possible mechanism for the transmission of traits, skills, and abilities, we find those means more than adequate to the task.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I would have to agree it does sound more likely that most traits, skills, and abilities are learned, than that they are inherited from parents. I can't help, though, think it remarkable how many characteristics do seem to run in families.
TINNY: There is a very good explanation for that fact based on learning principles. Modelling would be responsible for many of the characteristics which show up among members of a family, along with the shared opportunities and influences of the common environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you agree that inherited factors have some influence on the characteristics we will express as adults?
TINNY: In every trait, skill, and ability there is some aspect inherited from the parents. The physical and neurological structure of our bodies is largely determined by information given us by the chromosomes of our parents.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Doesn't that mean we will be whatever is directed by those inherited factors?
TINNY: The inherited factors don't determine what we will be, they determine what we can be. Those characteristics we inherit exist as potential. The expression of that potential is determined by the influences of our experiences with the environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me be specific about some aspects of human behaviour believed to be inherited. Is alcoholism inherited?
TINNY: No. No one becomes an alcoholic because of inherited physiological or neurological factors.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are some people born more prone to become alcoholics than others?
TINNY: It is sometimes very difficult to give a yes or no answer without being misleading. Yes, it is true some people are born more prone to become alcoholics than others. Some people are born more likely to do or be anything than others. That is because every person is born different from all others, and those differences will show up, however much or little, in the way each person interacts with their environment. With that said, I can now give you a better answer to the question. No, for all practical purposes, some people are not born more prone to become alcoholics than others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean that although there are differences among people related to how prone they are to become an alcoholic, that nowhere in that range of difference is there a condition which would actually make the person more prone to become an alcoholic?
TINNY: That's right. Nobody is born significantly more prone to alcoholism than any other person. What differences do exist are not significant.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is mental illness inherited?
TINNY: Before I could give you a definite answer to that question we would have to come to an agreement as to what is meant by the term 'mental illness'. While there may be some mental abnormalities which are transmitted genetically, the vast majority of what is considered to be mental illness is not transmitted genetically. Generally then, the answer is no.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is criminal behaviour inherited?
TINNY: No.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is homosexual behaviour inherited?
TINNY: No.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I picked those four classes in human behaviour, alcoholism, mental illness, criminality, and homosexuality because they have often been attributed to inherited factors. I think many people will find it hard to believe none of those four types of behaviour are inherited characteristics.
TINNY: The factors which result in the existence of those behaviours throughout human society are complex. I can say this, though, with no changes in the present inherited component which affects the expression of those behaviours, we could have a world that had no alcoholism, no mental illness other than the specific physical abnormalities passed on genetically, no crime, and no homosexual activity. The environmental influences which pervade our present world society subtly shape certain individuals behaviour patterns until they become alcoholics, mentally ill, criminals, or homosexuals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think this might be another area where the things which you say, while true, will either be found difficult to believe, or perhaps, even be found to be offensive.
TINNY: I'm sure you're right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Modern medicine is thought to be enlightened now that alcoholism is considered a disease. That has been considered an important new social insight.
TINNY: The importance of that social insight was that it took the blame away from the alcoholic. It removed some of the social stigma of being an alcoholic. Alcoholics could no longer be considered worthless people. That was good because all people are of great worth, regardless of whether or not they are alcoholics. Besides being wrong to consider alcoholism to be an inherited trait, it also removes the responsibility from the alcoholic for their condition.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What's wrong with taking the responsibility for their condition from alcoholics?
TINNY: If you take away the responsibility you also take the freewill. Every person who is an alcoholic must be given the responsibility for their condition so they can exercise their freewill to escape from the influence of alcohol. It is important to accept responsibility, because that which we do not have responsibility for we could hardly be expected to overcome.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it not the individual alone who is responsible for their alcoholism, is it?
TINNY: No, society owns some large part of that responsibility. Society powerfully conditions the belief that drinking alcohol is desirable. Society creates the role of the alcoholic, just as society creates the role of the mentally ill, the role of the criminal, and the role of the homosexual.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And as you said earlier when referring to the responsibility of society, that responsibility truly belongs to the people.
TINNY: That's right. The term society is just a convenient way to refer to the combined influence of all humanity. It should never be considered as some abstract concept, because it serves no purpose to assign responsibility to an abstract concept. Only human beings can accept responsibility. We each have responsibilities both as individuals and as members of the various social groups which make up the human race.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does every person on this planet share the responsibility for every problem which exists in human society?
TINNY: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if a person doesn't even know a certain problem exists; perhaps the problem only occurs in some remote part of the world? Does every individual still share responsibility for that problem?
TINNY: Every person has some degree of influence which diffuses throughout the world. Usually that influence is minor for any particular individual; but, some individuals have an influence which can bring major changes to the whole of human society. Whether the influence of any individual is great or small, the responsibility held by every individual is great. It is the responsibility of each person to be a positive influence. The billions of small positive influences which should naturally arise from the human populace are what can bring about a utopian future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you explain how each individual has responsibility for problems they don't even know about, even those on the other side of the world.
TINNY: All problems exist because of a wrongness in the collective consciousness of the human race. If a single human mind has a basic wrongness, that individual will manifest a wide range of problems. The consciousness of all individuals in the world makes up the collective human mind. A wrongness in an individual mind is a wrongness in the collective mind. If the collective human mind has a basic wrongness, human society manifests a wide range of problems.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the mechanism by which the influence of each individual is transmitted throughout the world?
TINNY: The mechanism is very similar to the way the mind of one individual alters the structure of the mind of another. It is done through the exchange of photons between physical matter at the subatomic level. We don't see that micro level of influence. We view those changes at the level of human physical form and mental processes. Each time any person influences their environment, the effects of that influence are transmitted directly to the immediate surroundings. The changes which take place in the immediate surroundings from that influence spread out affecting the broader environment. Those influences branch out times without number until the entire world feels the effects.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think I see what you mean. Would you give a specific example?
TINNY: The example will be hypothetical, but it could be real. A professor of psychology speaking to her university class makes a statement about world peace. She says there is nothing so fine and beautiful and necessary to human life as peace and love. There are thirty students in her class who hear that statement. Each of those students is changed to some degree by hearing the professor's words. The subatomic particles in the brains of each of those students are altered in their organisation by the input of that information. Each of those thirty students walks away from that classroom a changed person. Perhaps changed so slightly as to be unnoticeable, perhaps changed so greatly as to be glaringly obvious. Regardless of the degree of change, the fact remains, each one of those students is a changed person. For the rest of their lives some effect of hearing their professor's words will remain with them. Every interaction they have with their environment, which occurs after hearing the professor's words of peace and love, will transmit some degree of impact from those words. In some, perhaps most, of those future interactions the effect will be negligible; but, in some of those future interactions the effect may be immense. The influence of the professor's original words does not stop after being passed on just once, but is picked up and re-transmitted in some form after each new interaction in the spreading web of influence. Perhaps years later one of the original thirty students is now a teacher; and, when remembering those words of peace and love, passes them on to his students. And one of this new group of students grows up and develops a body of knowledge that, when spread widely throughout the world, initiates a change in the consciousness of humanity which results in a future of fully expressed peace and love, a utopian society.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see. After many years, and having gone through a number of intermediate stages, the influences of the professor's words of peace and love touch every person in the world.
TINNY: Of course the influence will not always be so dramatic; but, even the smallest influence diffuses through the whole world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you talking only about the influence of words?
TINNY: No, every thought, word, and deed which occur in each person's life will touch the life of every other person in the world to some degree. It is for this reason that we have such a great responsibility to be a positive influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is an awesome responsibility. Perhaps many will not want to accept so great a responsibility.
TINNY: We may not all want that responsibility, or we may not all meet that responsibility; but, we cannot refuse to accept it. It is ours whether we like it or not. That is the true nature of our reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Nevertheless, I think many might find it difficult to acknowledge that responsibility.
TINNY: I know. I can only sympathise. Sometimes I wish the truths I must speak could be more immediately appealing and acceptable. I would like to speak only words which would please all who hear. Unfortunately truth is not always pleasing to hear.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is only a temporary condition. Future generations will be pleased only by truth.
TINNY: And, getting back to the discussion of alcoholism, this is an example of truth being other than many people would desire to hear. The responsibility for alcoholism lies with the individual alcoholic and with all of human society. Alcoholism is conditioned and alcoholism is learned. By altering the circumstances which presently shape alcoholism people will no longer learn to be alcoholics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It sounds odd to hear that people learn to be alcoholics.
TINNY: That's because the word 'learn' has for so long been too limited in its usage. It will help people to exercise control over their own destinies when we all understand learning in its fullest meaning. We have too long associated learning with schools and academic subjects. Learning is an essential and continuous part of life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that each person must be given responsibility for their wrong actions. You also say it is through accepting this responsibility that each person can overcome their wrong actions by the exercise of freewill. Won't there be some people who will not be able to overcome their wrong actions? Might there not be people who cannot overcome their alcoholism?
TINNY: In all areas of human behaviour, where people presently act wrongly, there is no one who could not overcome that wrongness. There will, though, be those who do not overcome their wrong actions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do those who do not overcome their wrong actions fail because they do not try hard enough?
TINNY: It is within the potential of every person to overcome their wrong actions. That which is within our potential may not always be easily attainable. Few, if any, have yet reached their full potential. It is possible to try extremely hard and still not succeed. It is for that reason it can be said some people are not able to overcome their alcoholism, just as people struggling to achieve many other different goals do not succeed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What should be done about people who cannot overcome their wrong actions?
TINNY: They must be given more time and greater opportunity to succeed; but, even if a person cannot live up to what they know to be right, they must take great care that they do not influence others to follow their wrong example.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Sometimes people who are wrong in their behaviour and beliefs seek to influence others to act and believe in the same wrong way.
TINNY: I know they do. There are few things worse than influencing others to follow a wrong example.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why does anyone do such a thing?
TINNY: Sometimes people who do wrong encourage others to also do wrong because it reduces their feeling of guilt.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does it reduce their feelings of guilt?
TINNY: When someone is the only one doing wrong, the wrong stands in contrast to the right action of others. When doing wrong among others doing the same wrong thing, the wrong action becomes the social norm.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think the proverb, "misery loves company" refers to the need of someone doing wrong to influence others to do wrong also?
TINNY: That is one of the meanings of that old saying.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: People doing wrong often do not see themselves as being miserable though, do they?
TINNY: I sometimes wonder.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know you believe those who do wrong must be given time and greater opportunity to overcome their wrong actions. What should be done about people who influence others to do wrong?
TINNY: They should have the opportunity to be a wrong influence on others taken from them. Human society can overcome the harm from individual wrong action, but it may not be possible to overcome the harm done by those who actively seek to influence others to do wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem much of what is wrong in human society has been brought about by those who have successfully influenced others to think and act wrongly.
TINNY: That has been the cause of much which is wrong in the world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All of this wrong influence takes place by conditioning in accordance with the laws of learning doesn't it?
TINNY: It does. That is why when people widely come to know the laws of learning they will not be so susceptible to wrong influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the effect of conditioning in our present society results in such widespread use of alcohol and the massive problem of alcoholism, could a society exist in which the conditioning factors resulted in little use of alcohol and no alcoholism?
TINNY: That would be one of the many benefits of a sane society.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would that sane society be able to achieve those results, little use of alcohol and no alcoholism, without resorting to any form of negative control?
TINNY: That is the only way to successfully achieve those results. There could never be a sane society which resorted to any form of negative control. People cannot be made good by negative control. Goodness is an inner quality. Wrong behaviour can sometimes be temporarily suppressed by negative control, but goodness can never be instilled by negative control. Ultimately, right behaviour can only be achieved through positive influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Another class of behaviour which is very commonly attributed to inherited factors is mental illness. You say mental illness is a learned behaviour, that mental illness is conditioned by the experience of the individual with their environment. It is widely known that certain forms of mental illness occur within families, sometimes over many generations. How can you account for that if mental illness is not inherited?
TINNY: When I say mental illness is not inherited I mean that there is no gene or combination of genes which produces most types of mental illness. It is not surprising that mental illness tends to occur more often in some families. Mental illness is a set of learned characteristics. Some environments are more likely to shape the characteristics associated with mental illness than others. Among the most powerful influences in the environment are the social influences. Families are the most powerful sources of social influence, particularly during the early years. Families that have a history of mental illness have within their make-up more of the influences, mainly social, which produce the beliefs and behaviours of the mentally ill.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There must be some scientific basis for the belief that mental illness is inherited.
TINNY: There is, but not all evidence called scientific is logically sound and true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the strongest evidence that mental illness is an inherited characteristic?
TINNY: There have been statistical studies done which compare the rates of mental illness between family members of varying degrees of relationship with unrelated people in the community.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain in more detail?
TINNY: The researchers looked at how often mental illness occurs in children of mentally ill parents, in brothers and sisters of mentally ill people, and at most of the other close family relationships.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What did these studies show?
TINNY: The closer the genetic identity the more likely mental illness would occur.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does that mean?
TINNY: For example, brothers and sisters of a mentally ill person are more likely to also be mentally ill than are cousins of a mentally ill person. The twin of a mentally ill person is more likely to also be mentally ill than a brother or sister who is not a twin. But no matter what degree of closeness the family relationship, if one member of the family is mentally ill then the chances of some other member also becoming mentally ill are greater than among unrelated people.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is easy to see how that information could lead people to believe mental illness was an inherited characteristic.
TINNY: That certainly appears to be a reasonable interpretation; but, it is not necessarily true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have said that much of the social influence which results in mental illness exists within the families of those who are mentally ill. Is it that fact which accounts for the higher incidence of mental illness among related people than among unrelated people?
TINNY: The family social environment would account for much of the related mental illness between family members, but certainly not all of it. There have been studies done of twins separated at birth and raised in different families. They also show a much greater chance of both becoming mentally ill if one becomes mentally ill than would unrelated people.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does all that really mean?
TINNY: Remember I stressed that when I say mental illness is not inherited, I mean that there is no one gene or combination of genes which produces mental illness. I have not said that there is no connection between genetic make-up and the development of mental illness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that an important difference?
TINNY: That is an extremely important difference.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain how genetic factors relate to the development of mental illness?
TINNY: Each person is unique in the world in that their physical and neurological structure is different from all others. These differences are largely determined by the chromosomes inherited from their parents. I once gave an extreme example of how a person born with one leg is going to be a slower runner than most two legged people. While such an obvious difference in physical structure can easily be related to the later ability of the adult person, most differences in physiological and neurological make-up are not so obvious. A person born with only one leg will, throughout their life, not only be less likely to be a fast runner, but will have a different overall set of interactions with their environment. Those different interactions with their environment will begin from the earliest periods of life and continue throughout their life. Those differences in the interactions will not only be with the physical world, but also will result in different social interactions. And, not only will there be differences in the physical and social interactions, but in their own thoughts and feelings there will be differences which will come about due to being born with only one leg. Every difference in the genetic make-up, whether great or small, will somehow have an effect on the interactions between the physical, social, and inner mental environment during a person's life. The total of the genetic differences which make up each unique individual will have a combined effect on the nature of the individual's interaction with their environment. When every class of learned behaviour is looked at, we will find that the unique genetic structure of each individual has some effect on the individual's performance of that class of behaviour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does that mean in relation to the development of mental illness?
TINNY: Some people have a genetic make-up which will affect their interactions with the environment in such a way that those learning experiences are more likely to produce mental illness than others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean some people inherit characteristics which are more likely to make them mentally ill than others?
TINNY: No, it is not the genetic inheritance in any way which makes the person become mentally ill. It is the interactions with the total environment which produces mental illness. The genetic make-up of some people is such that their interactions with the environment result in those interactions making the development of mental illness more likely.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that difference so important?
TINNY: If a person's genetic make-up caused them to become mentally ill, there would be little that could be done to stop mental illness from occurring; but, since it is the interactions with the environment which produce mental illness there is much that can be done to remedy this problem.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the interactions of the individual with their environment produce mental illness, could there be further interactions with the environment which bring about a cure to that individual's mental illness?
TINNY: Yes. Just as there are conditions of environmental influence which produce mental illness, there are also conditions of environmental influence which can cure mental illness. It would also be possible for human society to be such that the conditions of environmental influence which produce mental illness do not exist.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it because human society is presently insane that there is so much mental illness?
TINNY: Much mental illness which now exists is an attempt by the consciousness of individuals to adjust to their insane environment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A sane society would not include those influences which produce mental illness, would it?
TINNY: In a truly sane society there would be no mentally ill people, regardless of what genetic inheritance they brought into the world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would appear that the unique physical and neurological structure of each individual, while having quite a large effect on the nature of that individual's interactions with their environment, has only a small impact on the total development when compared to the experiences of life.
TINNY: That is true. Although, it has often been noted that the most obvious of genetic characteristics which show up in our physical make up can be great enough to develop certain personality traits.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: By that do you mean certain ways people look will be related to the ways they behave?
TINNY: There have been psychological theories which attempt to characterise personality by body shape or facial features.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have those theories been very accurate?
TINNY: No, they are based on such broad generalities that they have little use when dealing with specific individuals. It is general observations of that type which have resulted in such stereotyped beliefs as: fat people are jolly, muscular people are aggressive, and skinny people wearing glasses are intellectual.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the basis for such beliefs?
TINNY: The basis of those beliefs comes from the fact that major differences in genetic make-up result in different patterns of interactions with the environment. Fat people, as a class, would have a different general set of interactions with their environment than would skinny people. The same process could occur related to facial features. Pretty girls or handsome boys will, as a class, have a different general set of interactions with their environment than would girls or boys who were considered ugly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give an example of those different interactions caused by body shape or facial features?
TINNY: If a person is fat they are likely to have a large number of comments made to them about their weight. Comments of that type will only be made to those who are overweight. The combined effect of those comments will only have an influence on that class of people who are overweight. Since there is a specific form of influence directed toward only one segment of society it would be expected that segment of society might be shaped to behave in ways different than the rest of society who were not subject to those influences.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could that be the reason overweight people are stereotyped as being jolly?
TINNY: It is possible that the particular influences unique to overweight people may result in the development of behaviour patterns which could be called jolly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me some idea how that could occur?
TINNY: I don't want to say this example is actually the way some overweight people are shaped toward being jolly. It would be better to think of this example as a way to understand the general process whereby overweight people might be conditioned to behave in a manner which is described as jolly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll keep that in mind.
TINNY: Since people who are quite overweight will have a number of comments made to them about their weight, they are likely to develop some particular tactics in dealing with those comments. If each time some comment was made about their weight they were to get angry, life could be very unpleasant. If each time some comment was made about their weight they were to respond in a good humoured way they might well receive a positive reaction from the person making the comment, and don't have to suffer themselves the unpleasant experience of anger. After many years of responding humorously to comments about their weight they would likely generalise that verbal skill to other aspects of their communication. From the perception of others such a person would probably be considered to be jolly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would that perception reinforce the stereotype that fat people are jolly?
TINNY: It would. In addition to whatever other influences, which during their development, condition overweight people to act in a jolly manner, those overweight people would also be aware that overweight people are often perceived to be jolly. The knowledge that such a stereotype exists might be another aspect of the conditioning factors in human society which result in the development of behaviour considered to be jolly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would that knowledge influence overweight people to be jolly?
TINNY: When others place expectations on us, or particularly when we place expectations on ourselves, we increase the likelihood we will act in accord with those expectations. If an overweight person has social expectations upon them to be jolly, the likelihood that they will act in a jolly manner is increased.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there a name for that process?
TINNY: It could be called the self-fulfilling prophecy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the effect of the self-fulfilling prophecy only created by the expectations placed upon us, or those which we place upon ourselves?
TINNY: The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy is much broader than that. The belief, held for whatever reason, that something is going to happen increases the likelihood of that thing happening.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can absolutely everything be affected by the self-fulfilling prophecy?
TINNY: No matter what it is which we expect will happen, that thing becomes more likely because it is expected.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If we expect to do well at something will that expectation make us do well?
TINNY: The self-fulfilling prophecy does not make things happen, it creates a set of circumstances which increase the probability that the expected thing will take place. If we expect to do well at something, that expectation increases the chance we will do well.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And if we expect to do poorly at something will that expectation increase the chance we will do poorly?
TINNY: That also is an effect of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does the self-fulfilling prophecy affect the way in which things happen?
TINNY: For example, if a person believes they are going to do well at something, they create a positive attitude toward the thing they are going to do. That positive feeling facilitates smooth and successful performance. In every thought and action related to the person's performance there will be some effect which facilitates that performance. If a person expects something to happen to them in the future they will act in ways, many of them unconscious, to make that thing happen.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If someone were to believe they were going to break their leg, does that actually increase the chance they will break their leg?
TINNY: It does. That belief will act on the person in many ways, largely subconscious, and the combined affect of those influences increases the probability that person will break their leg.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would happen if someone expected peace to come to our world? Would that increase the likelihood of world peace?
TINNY: If only one person believed the world is going to become a peaceful and loving place there would be some increase in the likelihood of that happening; but, it would be an extremely minor increase.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If a lot of people expect peace to come to the world, would that increase the likelihood of world peace more than if just one person expected it?
TINNY: The more people who believe anything will happen, the greater the affect of the combined influences which can increase the chance of that thing happening. If many people believe the world is going to become a peaceful and loving place that would result in a major increase in the likelihood of world peace becoming a reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would happen if every person in the world expected a future of peace?
TINNY: If everyone believed the world is going to become a peaceful and loving place then world peace would become a reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean that if everyone expects the same thing, that expectation will come true?
TINNY: That would be the effect of the self-fulfilling prophecy in those circumstances.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Most people in the world at present don't expect peace in the world. Instead of peace, most people believe there will be continued war and aggression, perhaps even a nuclear or environmental holocaust.
TINNY: Self-fulfilling prophecy works no matter what the expectation. If war and destruction is expected, we will have war and destruction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some of the world's religions have within their scriptures the belief that there is a great disaster coming. It is believed only the faithful few will survive that time of tribulation. The coming holocaust is thought to be inevitable, and it is accepted by some that nuclear war or environmental devastation may be the means by which that prophecy shall come to be.
TINNY: In general, such beliefs constitute a danger to humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are all those beliefs false?
TINNY: Much of what is believed is true. It is the future of the human race to either progress through raised consciousness to a future of peace and love, or to succumb to the prevailing wrong influences and perish in a horrible manner. We are close to the point now where, if all human society does not make the decision to follow the path of peace and love, the disastrous alternative will bring worldwide destruction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those religious beliefs are supposed to be the revealed word of God. How could they be wrong?
TINNY: I have no difficulty accepting the concept of revelation. Many are the ways in which we come to know truth. It is not always easy to know the full meaning of revelation. It is not inevitable that the human race must face such a terrible worldwide cataclysm in which all, most, or even many shall die. That prophesied future will become reality only if we continue our along present wrong path. If we choose to live in accord with natural law we can avoid that predicted catastrophe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If many religious people believe we are destined to undergo a worldwide catastrophe, does that increase the likelihood of that catastrophe taking place?
TINNY: It does indeed. That's why those beliefs are such a danger to humanity. If many people believe it is God's revealed word which says much of the world will be destroyed then those people will in various ways, largely subconsciously, act to bring about that worldwide destruction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But that is opposed to the basic nature of all religious truth. This is opposed to God's will.
TINNY: Religious believers have sometimes been conditioned to perceive even their own scriptures in a manner which is counter to natural law; or, you could say, which is opposed to God's will. It is such conditioning which has shaped human society into wrong beliefs and wrong actions. Those wrong beliefs and wrong actions are based on an incorrect perception of reality, and have resulted in an insane society. That the wrong interpretation of religious scriptures and revelation does sometimes occur is one of the many and varied symptoms of an insane society.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't it God's will that all humanity be saved?
TINNY: It is the nature of our reality that all beings should maximise their progression toward perfection. The destruction of all or much of the human race stands undeniably in the way of that goal being achieved.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that your way of saying it is God's will that all humanity be saved?
TINNY: Yes, it is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If it was inevitable that destruction faced much of the human race, we would not really have freewill, would we?
TINNY: The belief that much of the human race is destined to meet a cataclysmic end removes the freewill which is the legacy of the human species. If we can't have the freedom to survive, we don't have the responsibility for our destruction. To believe we are born to some certain fixed future has a very similar affect as the belief that we are born with a genetic inheritance which will determine our personality traits as adults. Both beliefs attribute the responsibility for our lives to factors over which we have no control. The responsibility for our personal development, and for the progression of the human race, rightly belongs to each individual.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me present one more common argument against the idea that it is the conditioning effects of our interaction with the environment which has the major influence in determining the characteristics of each individual. Often two people will come from a virtually identical environment, and yet they turn out to be completely different. For example, two people grow to maturity in a crime ridden, slum area. One turns out to be a thief and murderer, the other turns out to be a loving priest. It is often thought one was born bad and the other was born good, since the environmental influence was the same for both.
TINNY: That kind of thinking shows a lack of understanding of the factors which make up the environment. Both the criminal and the holy man, in the example, might have had the same physical and social influences. We could take the example further and say they were brothers, even identical twins, in our attempt to make their physical and social environments as nearly identical as possible. What we are then considering is still only the smaller part of the environmental influence upon the criminal and the priest. The biggest part of the environmental influence upon us always comes from our own thoughts and feelings, from our inner speech. When twin brothers turn out to be so very different from each other, having grown up in the same neighbourhood, in the same home, with the same family and acquaintances, the factor which is responsible for that great difference is due to the thoughts and feelings which took place in their inner speech over the years. It might be true that the physical and social environment they both experienced had a strong general influence toward the development of criminal behaviour. The inner speech of one would have provided influence which aided the effect of the external environmental influences, and he became a criminal.
The inner speech of the other would have provided influence which opposed the effect of the external environmental influences, and he became a priest. Our inner speech is the source of our freewill. There are, in all physical and social environments, influences which hinder our progression and influences which aid our progression. With little effort we can support those influences which hinder our progression with inner speech, and, we can counter those influences which aid our progression with inner speech. In that case we insure a life which descends into the animal nature, having no hope of attaining perfection. That can be done without the exercise of our freewill. But, if we choose to exercise our freewill we can, with inner speech, counter those influences which hinder our progression, and we can with inner speech support those influences which aid our progression. In this case we insure a life which rises into the full expression of human nature, continuing toward our grand destiny, perfection in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Of those four classes of behaviour, sometimes believed to be inherited rather than learned, we have discussed alcoholism and mental illness. Later I want to ask more about mental illness; but, first I'd like to know something about the other two behaviours, criminality and homosexuality. Do both of those patterns of behaviour develop through the conditioning factors of the physical environment, the social environment, and inner speech?
TINNY: Both criminal behaviour and homosexuality are learned behaviours. There is no genetic information carried in the chromosomes which can make a person either a criminal or a homosexual.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: After our discussion about alcoholism and mental illness I have no difficulty in accepting that as truth. Once again, though, particularly with homosexuality, the trend seems to be toward the acceptance that homosexuals are born that way.
TINNY: Social factors, which in reality, have no logical significance, often influence the beliefs that people hold. There has been, within recent times, an attempt to equate the condition of homosexuality as an issue of civil rights. It is easier to pass homosexuality off as a legitimate lifestyle, which must be protected along with other civil rights, if it is a matter of genetic inheritance rather than a learned behaviour. If people are born homosexual then we would have to accept that homosexuality is natural. The homosexual would have no responsibility for their condition, and would justifiably expect to be granted the same rights as all other people.
